Weekly ISF Friday Strategy - Discussion

If you haven't noticed, I recently started making strategy blog entries every Friday. I figure for discussion and question purposes, you can post here.

I've written three articles so far, they are meant to be discussion on forum content but there hasn't been much the past two weeks so I just wrote articles instead.

Here is the one for this friday, titled "There is no such thing as a made hand."



http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...-made-hand-150

So do they suck? Do you just not know what to say? Not reading them? Come on people feedback! What would you like to see in the future? You can post a hand you'd like me to write an article on if you want! I'm open to any suggestions.

i promise to read them 2m. id love to see something on floating in 3bet pots IP.

they definitely don't suck

haven't read all of them yet, but there very interesting.

If I may ask for a subject, could you write something about playing flush draws and especially when you want to reraise flops with them etc.? or maybe a bit wider subject; semibluffing.

thanks

I didnt dare to post, coz your strat posts always make me feel like a dummy.

All three were great insight, each on its topic and the articles itself point out, how a "thinking players mind" is working.

I understood, how you define a "made hand" and a "draw" but until now I couldnt figure out why it matters.

Man, this makes me realise I need to break out TOP and start all over again, too much of that stuff is going over my head.

How much time do you (did you earlier) spend studying poker v's playing it?

I like the interviews too, interesting stuff.

Originally Posted by bjsaust

How much time do you (did you earlier) spend studying poker v's playing it?

I barely study at all, although concepts go through my head all the time, and ill often discuss them with comrades like sauce.

Which to you give more weight to when you have a drawing hand, pot odds or fold equity? I'm know it's opponent dependent, but do you think that playing you draws as aggressively as you would your made hands be more profitable than just calling down when you are laid pot odds? IMO nobody is going to pay off your flush if you've called for 2 streets then all of the sudden wake up when the flush hits the board.


If you are in position postflop wouldn't you be better off raising a donk bet than calling if you have the odds? When you add % of times he folds and you don't have to connect, amount of times he calls and you connect i think it makes up for the extra money we spend when we don't connect. It also adds draws to the ranges opponents put us on and forces them to call more value bets on the river when we were playing a "made hand" to begin with.

I know that poker shouldn't be generalized, but still... in general.

An article about dealing with shortstacks would be great

I read all the interviews before.

Just read the pocket pair topic, interesting post with a good conclusion. One thing jumped out at me was P4s raise on flop of $300 instead of shoving, is it right that i wud assume that when he has a strong/draw/air type hands he wud either raise OR shove for balance.

It was also interesting in what Gabe/You mentioned by raising/shoving based on opp 3 bet range, its something i touched on in my operation thread of equities on certain boards based on ranges.

ill read the adjusting on in a min.

Originally Posted by XTR1000

An article about dealing with shortstacks would be great

Go to 2p2, look at the strat post sticky in ssnl, and you'll find a great article that goes into huge detail.

New article up, I think this is my best one yet.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...-questions-168

again reaaaally good stuff!

fucking hell, i gotta have a think about what you wrote esp. on floating.

next time how about second barrelling in 3bet pots lol

brilliant

These are very, very well-done. Keep up the good work. Maybe one of the next things you could write about is adjusting to your opponent HU?

Thank u for writing these ISF. I learn a lot from reading them.

great stuff man

just reread the floating part. i think ive got a good basic idea of what to do postflop regards floating, bluff-shoving, VB'ing.

Id would say my play would be very transparent to a good player as my strategy would be very ABC depending on certain flops but by the time i make it back to 200nl+ ill hopefully of learned more.

Hey guys,
So i'd also appreciate if you have any hands you want a super in depth explanation about; it could be already posted by you or someone else or some hand you didn't post. More questions or topic suggestions are welcome as well.

maybe something about getting reraised on flop/turn/river and what you can distract from betting sizes from your opponents?

One simple situation that comes up so so often that Ive been thinking about is SB vs BB. We are in BB and SB open raises 3xBB usually.

I think ppl are CALLING way too much and instead should 3bet a huge % of hands bcoz we get inititive and position, 3betting works great against multitabling players, postflop is easy. i dunno whats your most used play since ppl steal % in this spot must be higher than on button.

This weeks is up, note it'll be normally up on Friday's, sometimes it gets switched up with my interview though.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...ing-ranges-186

thanks for going into my question. These articles are very usefull as I try to understand the concepts and move up.

No question, just a note to thank you for making these blog posts. Your blog is one of the best things going on FTR atm .

Great posts.
Just wanted to say thanks for posting stuff like this regularly, and i look forward to reading them every week.
I don't reply because i'm a newb and most of it is gonna take me 5 or 6 reads just to start to grasp it.
I'm sure i will have questions in the future.

Next week is up, very complicated but awesome if you get it.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...omfortable-202

Another excellent article. Definitely going to try to implement some of the ideas in it when I play competent players HU.

brilliant. thanks a lot

does not deliver : only improved my game nine-fold

thanks for writing these ISF, your latest article is amazing!

Are you guys really getting this? I feel you may read it and see how awesome it is, but forget about it later... I really want to help everyone on FTR, so if there's any advice on how to make these more clear tell me.

I think you're articulating the concepts very clearly. The issue is how well we can actually implement some of it into our game. This weeks for instance makes a lot of sense, but in an actual game making these conclusions and the adjustments on the fly could be easier said (or thought offline) than in reality.

Others such as the forming ranges one can quite easily be implemented. So its less how clear you make it, and more how easy it is to implement the ideas.

Originally Posted by bjsaust

I think you're articulating the concepts very clearly. The issue is how well we can actually implement some of it into our game. This weeks for instance makes a lot of sense, but in an actual game making these conclusions and the adjustments on the fly could be easier said (or thought offline) than in reality.

Others such as the forming ranges one can quite easily be implemented. So its less how clear you make it, and more how easy it is to implement the ideas.

Yeah I think you make a good point, I think one of the issues is my examples are very midstakes situations. I need to make more situations that show how concepts apply to low stakes.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Are you guys really getting this? I feel you may read it and see how awesome it is, but forget about it later... I really want to help everyone on FTR, so if there's any advice on how to make these more clear tell me.

Reading the posts each week. Great work even though I am not yet following everything! The term equity/fold equity I see used alot in discussions so some kind of noobs guide/introduction to equity would be useful if such a thing can be covered easily.

Here's the one this week: http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...low-stakes-217

Shifubowa I'll make sure to get your question next week/

New post.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...sf-theorem-249

lol sorry shifubowa I'll make sure next week to answer that question, I hadn't checked this thread in awhile.

Sup your blog is awesome afaik.

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Sup your blog is awesome afaik.

Considering you've made more than me at poker this is an awesome compliment

an email news letter strat guide? is that possible?
nice post too

Originally Posted by mrhappy333

an email news letter strat guide? is that possible?
nice post too

Tell that to Eric or GMML

I really appreciated this latest article, thanks ISF.

I've really enjoyed the last two ISF. Very useful for guys like me still starting out.

One question, which you somewhat address. How much do you need to play, or how much/regular do your opponents need to play, in order for things like manipulating your own range to play a big part? I mean, if you're at a table of people you've never seen before, probably wont see again, and will probably only play at most a couple hundred hands v's them, then is there enough/any value in these concepts?

When you shove A2s all in preflop once it does wonders for your image, so doing image manipulation versus anyone can be helpful. In HU matches i tend to go crazy in the first 5 minutes, and its unreal what these guys begin to call me with.

Interesting, in HU tournies I tend to go all passive for the first 5 minutes, and its amazing how many big pots they'll let you take later.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

Sup your blog is awesome afaik.

Considering you've made more than me at poker this is an awesome compliment

tbh I doubt thats true.

another great post ISF!!! tbh your the one who has thought me to think in terms of ranges.

gabe's single post of "poker is all ranges, calling ranges, raising ranges, folding ranges," etc was like, oh my god, for me.

I hope I finally get the theorem.

Question
I guess ISF theorem also applies to preflop...so apart from whether it is +EV or not; 3-betting an UTG 20/15 open with 65s from the BB is ISF theorem?

Comments
IMO, the definition of the theorem can be fine tuned a little bit.
Firstly I think the theorem only/mostly responds on the lower part of your range. Secondly I think "Bluffing more" and "playing tighter" aren't really opposites of eachother, while your range being "ahead" or "behind" is.

"If your range is ahead of your opponents range, you should bluff more often."
Let's say you are in a situation with 72o and your range is ahead of your opponents range. To apply ISF theorem you should bluff more often.
But what if you are in the same situation with the nuts? The theorem doesn't say one should valuebet less (in betsizing) or less often.

If your range is behind your opponents range, you should play tighter
This part actually 'could' be responding to both the upper part and lower part of you range. It matters what definition you have of 'tigher'. It likely means bluffing less, folding more. But does it also mean value bet harder?
When your range is behind your top hands get paid more (often).

Suggestions
What I am mostly missing is the two parts of a range thing, because your range is almost never fully ahead or behind your opponents range.
So I would suggest something like:

When your range is ahead, with the upper part your should value bet less (often) and with the lower part your should bluff more (often).
When your range is behind, with the upper part you should value bet more (often), with your lower part you should bluff less (often).

Minsim,

Interesting points but there is some big flaws especially in the suggest change. But I think your close to getting it.

1. ISF theorem isn't here to suggest moves in a vacuum. If you have air in a random scenario and your range is ahead of their range should you bet? The answer is likely no. If you read my blog on forming ranges, that may help.

2. You should not valuebet less with the nuts, but I'm glad your understanding the concept. You may have actually meant what I'm about to say, but there are two things ISF theorem can say about the nuts. The first is that nut hands are a necessary part of your range in order to make bluffs. You stop betting your nut hands in spots where your range is strong, your range becomes weak obviously! The second point is much more interesting. Let's say we have a very strong range and facing a weak range. If we bet and our opponent is aware of both ranges he's probably folding almost everytime. Therefore, having this many strong hands in our range seems pointless. Unless we can do either of two things: Show up with more bluffs. And the 2nd is [b] change the lines we take with our some of our nut hands[b].

I can't think of a hand to explain the second one, but in general people who can balance out the strength of all their ranges are very hard to play against (not to say that is the correct thing to do).

The 2nd part of your suggestions seems correct. If your opponent knows you have a weak range and you make a bet he's going to call with a ton of hands, so of course anytime we have the top of our range we are inclined to bet.

But this doesn't just apply to vbeting and bluffing more or less often. For example, a lot of players i play against will often call the flop with mid to bottom pair and raise top pair or better, which means they fold to two barrels nearly 100% of the time. ISF theorem suggests fixing opponents range in two ways.
1. Calling nut hands on two streets more often.
2. Folding the flop more often with the worse mid and bottom pairs.

Those two things have nothing to do with bluffing or vbetting less.

I like your point on how bluffing and playing tighter aren't really opposite. But the second part isn't really just playing passive, or playing tighter, and tighter seems to imply both.

As far as the whole valuebetting concepts as a whole. I mean pretty much if you feel like 50% of hands opp will call a bet with your beating you should bet (if on the river, turn and flop or trickier). But when you have the top of your percieved range you should likely vbet. However, if opps range is strong that can change your action.

Hope that helped.

Question
I guess ISF theorem also applies to preflop...so apart from whether it is +EV or not; 3-betting an UTG 20/15 open with 65s from the BB is ISF theorem?

Don't really get the question. UTG 20/15 clearly has a strong range. If our image would make a threebet look like we had a super strong range, than yes that is taking advantage of ISF theorem.

Thanks for your extensive response ISF.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Don't really get the question. UTG 20/15 clearly has a strong range. If our image would make a threebet look like we had a super strong range, than yes that is taking advantage of ISF theorem.

Yes, I meant that our 3-bet range here is very strong and therefor we can bluff more. It may not be the best example because villains range is strong or too strong.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

1. ISF theorem isn't here to suggest moves in a vacuum. If you have air in a random scenario and your range is ahead of their range should you bet? The answer is likely no. If you read my blog on forming ranges, that may help.

Yeah I really have to. It's very difficult (at least for me) to get the thinking fundamentally straight and constantly apply range vs range instead of actual hand vs range.

I did like your article on forming ranges and it's on my list to think more about it. Especially about how chosing particular type of hands to expand our range instead of just adding like the next 5% of best hand strengths.
I'll probably get back to this sometime in the future.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

2. You should not valuebet less with the nuts, but I'm glad your understanding the concept. You may have actually meant what I'm about to say, but there are two things ISF theorem can say about the nuts. The first is that nut hands are a necessary part of your range in order to make bluffs. You stop betting your nut hands in spots where your range is strong, your range becomes weak obviously! The second point is much more interesting. Let's say we have a very strong range and facing a weak range. If we bet and our opponent is aware of both ranges he's probably folding almost everytime. Therefore, having this many strong hands in our range seems pointless. Unless we can do either of two things: Show up with more bluffs. And the 2nd is [b] change the lines we take with our some of our nut hands[b].

I partly meant what you say as a second point.
What I also tried to say was betting less, in betsize, with your nut hands.

I wrote more about it which I will came back on later, but suddenly the next very important question came into my head: Fundamentally, is ISF theorem talking about:

1. a certain point in a hand where hero has a range and villain has a range, and hero has to decide what to do at that point, with those ranges?
(where history, image, villains point of view on our range, is important, not our actual range)
2. or forming an actual range from game theory point of view against villains range.
If we can theoretically form our own range by bluffing and playing tighter in that same situation over and over again, does that mean the ultimate goal from ISF theorem is to have a perfectly balanced range against villains range?...anytime, anywhere?


I thought it was nr 1, but you said "ISF theorem isn't here to suggest moves in a vacuum", so I wonder if it maybe is 2. I also think in the end nr 1 leads to nr 2, but we almost never have enough history with a villain to get there.

ISF theorem is a guideline on how to play hands based on how we read ranges on both sides. Many can hand read pretty well, but that's not all there is to poker. You have to figure out how you need to play based on how your opponent is acting, and that part can be really hard. ISF theorem helps you figure that out.

I'd say to answer your question about fundamentally what ISF theorem is... It's probably closer to number two then number one. But remember, our range is completely dependent on what our opponent thinks it is, rather than what it actually is. Better players have an easier time figuring out what our range is, so it's closer to what it actually is, therefore ISF theorem becomes a sort of optimality guideline. But versus weaker hand readers it almost the opposite. It teaches you to make ridiculous plays, super exploitable ones, and sometimes super tight folds because of what your opponent thinks your range is. It often encourages exploitation in one area to strengthen another area.

This week is up

http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...r-practice-283

Hey, really appreciated that last one, I think you really hit on a good system for making it relevant to low stakes guys. A good "complex" example of the concept, followed by a simple "standard situation" example to show how the same concept can be applied in both situations.

Very nice.

ISF, how does the theorem correspond with advising to play tight at micro stakes.

As people are usually playing any kind of hand, which makes their range really weak, why should we play a very strong one against it.
I have been thinking about this before on another level, but from the theorem perspective; shouldn't we actually be playing more hands?

ISF, it takes me about a month to get through one of your weekly posts, and I started late. LoL. Keep this up. This stuff is great.

Just a heartfelt micro-noobie thank you. Please keep posting.

Originally Posted by minSim

ISF, how does the theorem correspond with advising to play tight at micro stakes.

As people are usually playing any kind of hand, which makes their range really weak, why should we play a very strong one against it.
I have been thinking about this before on another level, but from the theorem perspective; shouldn't we actually be playing more hands?

Why? Your completely correct. They are playing weak ranges, and making bad calls based on our betting range. The more pure value hands we have in our range, the more calling is a mistake. Playing more hands (therefore weaker ones) makes a bad call less of a mistake.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by minSim

ISF, how does the theorem correspond with advising to play tight at micro stakes.

As people are usually playing any kind of hand, which makes their range really weak, why should we play a very strong one against it.
I have been thinking about this before on another level, but from the theorem perspective; shouldn't we actually be playing more hands?

Why? Your completely correct. They are playing weak ranges, and making bad calls based on our betting range. The more pure value hands we have in our range, the more calling is a mistake. Playing more hands (therefore weaker ones) makes a bad call less of a mistake.

I've been staring at this for about five minutes. I think I'm starting to get it now. But there's a balance. We want to play 100% of pure value hands. So my question is, what are "pure value" hands? For me, I have solid +EV from all positions with all pp's, AQ+ and decent EV from LP with A9+ and KQ. Is that how you're defining pure value?

Robb - I think your range of pure value hands is spot on. I'm not really sure about A9o or ATo, it's probably a little dependant on the players in the blinds, but w.e. should often be profitable.

ISF - I agree when our range is tighter/stronger and villain will call with the same hands, he's making a bigger mistake when calling.
But when we open our range of value hands, and villain stays with his calling range, he's making a smaller mistake, but he is making more of them.

It's a balance thing. More mistakes but smaller ones or less mistakes but bigger ones.


I have to admit it's an eye opener to me that our range of pure value hands is THAT tight and that actually we are/I am often making the mistake by playing more hands against calling stations.

Interesting, essentially this guides us towards ABC poker at lower stakes with an emphasis on value betting and making the most of their mistakes (calling us down with inferior hands).

To me this makes a lot of sense, allowing me to cope easier with moving up from playing just 2/3 tables by keeping my game plan simple and possibly has a benefit of reducing variance while retaining a modest return. Strangely, I think my bank roll will suggest I should move up levels before I am possibly ready unless I am currently on the positive side of variance (small sample).

It may be easy to scoff at ABC or a player who aims at ABC but this is a fundamental of the game and without a sound knowledge of this 'higher' concepts surely can not be grasped fully. This should not preclude evolving your thinking with these concepts though. A difficulty with these concepts is the danger of coloring them with our own preconceptions which may/may not be valid and in turn can need re-evaluation.

For a player like me (2/5cents - on a rebuild) my focus is still on simple things but reading threads like this and articles about isf theory/Shania/G-bucks? - surprised no one has mentioned that one, can only help me evolve.

Originally Posted by minSim

Robb - I think your range of pure value hands is spot on. I'm not really sure about A9o or ATo, it's probably a little dependant on the players in the blinds, but w.e. should often be profitable.

ISF - I agree when our range is tighter/stronger and villain will call with the same hands, he's making a bigger mistake when calling.
But when we open our range of value hands, and villain stays with his calling range, he's making a smaller mistake, but he is making more of them.

It's a balance thing. More mistakes but smaller ones or less mistakes but bigger ones.


I have to admit it's an eye opener to me that our range of pure value hands is THAT tight and that actually we are/I am often making the mistake by playing more hands against calling stations.

If you haven't noticed, most people at micro stakes have very wide calling ranges, at least most of the fish do. You never know if he's going to call you with bottom pair or top set. Therefore, it's a lot harder to make a wide thin valuebet.

But, any hand that when you bet it will get called with 51% or more hands that you are beating, is a value hand (not really, but close enough).
But also you have to note that calling ranges vary from hand to hand, so you're much better of having a hand preflop that will clearly be played for value postflop, and the worst of those for me is probably AJs when we are UTG, and maybe KJ/AT when we are CO or BU (you can also add all broadways if you are comfortable post flop, like QJ, KT, QT, JT, etc.). 87s on the other hand, is not a value hand. It's a hand used for balancing and action purposes and is really not very necessary for a micro stakes player, though you can use it if you would like, but nothing worse than 54s-98s. No 86s.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

You have to note that calling ranges vary from hand to hand, so you're much better of having a hand preflop that will clearly be played for value postflop, and the worst of those for me is probably AJs when we are UTG, and maybe KJ/AT when we are CO or BU (you can also add all broadways if you are comfortable post flop, like QJ, KT, QT, JT, etc.). 87s on the other hand, is not a value hand. It's a hand used for balancing and action purposes and is really not very necessary for a micro stakes player, though you can use it if you would like, but nothing worse than 54s-98s. No 86s.

Right, this makes sense. I'm only playing the weak broadways when I have a good read that villain(s) will see the flop with a wide range, and postflop play that I know I can do well against.

I see a lot of folks at NL25 and lower posting hands with sc's, but I don't really play them, except VERY rarely and against VERY fishy villains. And I'm even beginning to understand why

Wow, I just realized how good your blog is. Will read everything.

Originally Posted by The Odds God

Wow, I just realized how good your blog is. Will read everything.

thanks

Originally Posted by Shifubowa

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Are you guys really getting this? I feel you may read it and see how awesome it is, but forget about it later... I really want to help everyone on FTR, so if there's any advice on how to make these more clear tell me.

Reading the posts each week. Great work even though I am not yet following everything! The term equity/fold equity I see used alot in discussions so some kind of noobs guide/introduction to equity would be useful if such a thing can be covered easily.

I'm going to do this in the beginners circle.

Not my best but worth a read

http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...bet-sizing-315


Any suggestions anyone may have for a topic please post in this thread. Any questions as well.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Not my best...

LoL. You worst post is a high bar to clear for most of us.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

...but worth a read

Definitely. Gonna reread this tonight, and work through some common scenarios.

vnh

New blog is up.

New blog is up

http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...ges-part-2-356

I liked this one a lot.

Yeah ISF thats a really good one, thank you

This week's is very good. The example you used holds especially true for heads up and the range of hands to checkraise the flop with when you defend oop pf. It took me many hands worth of experience to stop spastically c/ring the flop at random times, and instead realize that it was far better to raise non-made hands for the most part only when I have the fold equity PLUS decent equity against villain's peeling range.

ISF you do a great job of explaining concepts -- i hope you don't stop writing anytime soon

Your posts are awesome and I generated a much deeper understanding of this game by reading your blog. You do a great job and it´s well appreciated, even tho I lurk around here more than I actually contribute.

Wes and I had a discussion recently, whether or not balance matters when facing a straight level-0 opposition.
One argued, it doesnt, since they don´t care about our range, I believe it still does b/c game theory applies regardless of the involved players understanding.

It would be great, if you could clarify this.

In add to that, I believe that this issue is one major factor, why some people claimed, that your strat posts dont apply to microstakes or are "too advanced" for newbies. From a beginners point of view, that whole "balance&range"-thingy seems to imply to some point, that the players u are facing must care about our range.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/blogs/w...r-analysis-409

I like this one.